Go to page

Go to page

Not...really. Turkey and Georgia are in the way. Sure. They can traffic them through, but it is a long way. And relations can still go south. Especially with turkey. But it certainly isn’t “off the table.”

Huh? Syria HAS warm water ports! You yourself said, that's what Russia wants. From Syria, Russia can now project naval power throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. Relations between Russia and Syria are not going to "go south". Russia now OWNS Syria, for ALL intents and purposes.

This issue is almost moot, anyhow. In a warming world, Russia's Black Sea ports ARE warm water ports. They aren't likely to be icing over in winters much anymore. Maybe on rare occasions.

Huh? Syria HAS warm water ports! You yourself said, that's what Russia wants. From Syria, Russia can now project naval power throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. Relations between Russia and Syria are not going to "go south". Russia now OWNS Syria, for ALL intents and purposes.

This issue is almost moot, anyhow. In a warming world, Russia's Black Sea ports ARE warm water ports. They aren't likely to be icing over in winters much anymore. Maybe on rare occasions.

The issue is not having a port to project naval power. The issue is having a port to ship and receive goods from. Civilian goods. Anything shipped out of Syria has to be taken TO Syria first. Which defeats the purpose. That is a long way away from the main Russia populations. You don’t want to have to ship it by rail that far. Economies of scale and all? The rail is too expensive still.

The closer the shipping to your major population centers? The cheaper and better. And Russia wants those ports in the Baltic and they want the ports in the Black Sea. And they want secure trade through Istanbul/turkey and then through ports globally.

As for “warm water.” They aren’t reliable. And they still do. Canada is starting to have a northwest passage. And that is going to be a big deal trade wise. And it could open up possibilities for Russia as well. But reliability is the factor.

When the president’s brother asked about the dropped reference to Congress, the president replied: “It was more than enough to take on the military and private industry. I couldn’t take on the Congress as well.”

The issue is not having a port to project naval power. The issue is having a port to ship and receive goods from. Civilian goods. Anything shipped out of Syria has to be taken TO Syria first. Which defeats the purpose. That is a long way away from the main Russia populations. You don’t want to have to ship it by rail that far. Economies of scale and all? The rail is too expensive still.

The closer the shipping to your major population centers? The cheaper and better. And Russia wants those ports in the Baltic and they want the ports in the Black Sea. And they want secure trade through Istanbul/turkey and then through ports globally.

As for “warm water.” They aren’t reliable. And they still do. Canada is starting to have a northwest passage. And that is going to be a big deal trade wise. And it could open up possibilities for Russia as well. But reliability is the factor.

As I said, this issue is almost certainly moot, because in a warming world, it is extremely unlikely that Russia will find itself unable to ship or receive goods out of its Black Sea ports.

Ideally, one supposes that Russia would LOVE to control the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. To do so, I guess they would have to CONQUER Turkey. The world would have to change quite radically for that to happen.....

Exactly. I've been wondering about why he decided to leave it out myself. Maybe it was just a sign of the times, not to publicly question congress during the cold war. Whatever the reason, Eisenhower should have gone with his original intent.

Political Hotwire

Founded in 2005, Political Hotwire is a political forum to discuss current events, world news, and political topics. We welcome all political ideologies to discuss all political issues from civil rights to business and industry.